The 20th Century Sensory Homunculus

Sensory homunculus

In contrast to what modern medicine insinuates not all physiological effects of circumcision are local. The local effects are only the tip of the iceberg. That is because the nervous system interconnects all body parts and whatever happens to the skin acquires meaning in the brain.

Most of us have lost receptors and sensitivity on some parts of the skin due to injuries. As a result we have scars that are insensitive and the corresponding parts of our sensory areas in the cerebral cortex are left unemployed after the accident. Does that make us physically different? Of course it does depending on the size of the scar hence on the size of the cortical sensory area rendered inoperative. The prepuce does not extend much from the glans penis so outwardly circumcised and natural men are quite alike. Its cortical sensory area, however, is much larger than that of the rest of the penis because prepuce is much more sensitive.

Different parts of the skin are differently populated with receptors. Sensitive parts have more receptors and their cortical sensory areas are larger. Evolution made the cortical areas unequal because the different body parts have proved to have unequal significance to survival. The greater the importance of a part of the skin the greater number of receptors it contains and the larger area corresponding to it in the primary somatosensory cortex is.[i] The sensory and cortical homunculi[ii] are used to illustrate the density of receptors and to show the relative importance of the body parts.

The 20th century asexual homunculus

The asexual sensory homunculus of the 20th century

The sensory homunculus is an image of the human body in which body parts are shown in proportion to the size of their cortical sensory areas. The sensory homunculus is a distorted human model in which the sensitive parts such as lips, tongue, palms and fingers are larger. But in the most common representations of the sensory homunculus something quite sensitive is omitted or its sensitivity is severely undervalued. Its genitalia are shown microscopic which makes it appear completely asexual. But as you probably know sex is crucial for the survival of species. That is why in actuality sexual organs are quite sensitive. They are rich in receptors that generate pleasurable sensations. And this is even more so for the apes and humans. Being within the reach of their deft hands their genitalia has overdeveloped their sensitivity. The autoeroticism has enlarged their brains and made them sexually promiscuous. This, however, is not evident at all in the classic chaste homunculi.

The asexual cortical homunculus of the 20th century

The cortical sensory homunculus is an image of the somatosensory cortex with the corresponding body parts depicted on the side to visualize the position and the relative size of the corresponding sensory areas. The genitalia are represented as miniature and approximately having the size of the toes. The classical cortical sensory homunculus of the 20th century suggests that the penis is as sensitive as the big toe. With their genitalia so tiny the asexual sensory homunculi appear infantile to us but certainly they are pleasing to God. Perhaps if we were like them circumcision would not have been imposed upon us. These reverential homunculi can make anyone feel guilty of having exaggerated the importance of his or her genital needs. “You are all Original Sinners!” – the homunculus silently screams to us.

But why is the sexuality of these homunculi so suppressed in the first place? Most of the experiments for determining skin sensitivity have been performed without even touching the genitalia of the subject who was not completely undressed. If penises were examined at all they were accessed through the underwear and with a large soft brush which, of course, yields imprecise results. For God’s sake, experimentation should not cause sexual arousal! Explorers must stay calm and objective. Yet their heterosexuality should not be questioned. They dared not touch the genitalia of the examined subjects because they knew too well how sensitive these organs were. Nor did they want their knowledge about this sensitivity to come into prominence.

The unduly shyness of researchers shrank the penis of the homunculus. They know but are unwilling to admit the immense importance of genitalia. But they are not to be blamed if their coyness is unconscious or habituated. Even a deliberate counterfeit may be done for the sake of truth if it is felt to compensate for a disgraceful exaggeration. The fear of God, of sexuality and of true human nature drastically diminished the genitalia of the sensory homunculi. To our fear-based moral the normal sexuality is the suppressed one. It is the inhibited sexuality or the Original Sin Guilt of the researches that rendered their homunculi asexual. Researchers found only what they intended to. The asexual homunculi were their self-portraits. It appears that the classic scientists of the 20th century were circumcised mentally or in flesh.

Would the homunculus keep the same proportions if explorers and subjects were of opposite sex?

The repressed sexuality of the 20th century homunculi insinuates that natural sexuality is out of norm. We seem preoccupied with sex at least compared to these wide-spread sensory homunculi. But you do not have to worry: you are not a sex maniac only because you feel that your penis is more important than some researches dared to show. Researchers are much like us, and have the normal for our society limitations to admit the importance of genitalia. Not to say they may also fear being accused of sexual harassmentdueto repression of sexuality that is habitual even for western democracies. In Canada, for instance, ethical regulations are trying to instil fear of God in researches and to prohibit the studying the adverse effects of circumcision on the brain and publishing of their results.[iii] Science may be blinded by religious morals and commerce in the same way as religion may be scholastic and mercantile. The judgment of science and religion is unreliable in the fields where their influences overlap. Only nature can set the true standard of normality which religion and culture tend to distort according to their own needs.